The Bombay High Court has dismissed a retired teacher’s plea seeking revision of her pension and pay scale on the basis of her B.A., B.Ed. qualification, holding that acquiring the qualification by itself did not entitle her to the trained-teacher scale when she had not been appointed against a sanctioned post.
A Division Bench of Justice Sandesh D. Patil and Justice M. S. Karnik delivered the judgment on September 17, 2026.
Background
The petitioner, Sou. Geetanjali Kulkarni, had joined the concerned school as an Assistant Teacher on July 1, 1981, with an S.S.C. and D.Ed. qualification. During her service, she obtained a B.Ed. degree in 1994 and continued working as an Assistant Teacher. She retired from service with effect from June 30, 2000.
She claimed that after obtaining her B.Ed. qualification and completing the required period of service, she became entitled to the B.A., B.Ed. pay scale. She relied upon the Government Resolution dated May 15, 1990 and sought revision of her pension from July 1, 2000, along with arrears and interest.
The authorities, however, maintained that there was no sanctioned vacant B.Ed. post available for her. The State also pointed out that the sanctioned B.Ed. posts had already been filled, including two posts created in 1992-93.
The High Court examined the records produced by the school management pursuant to an earlier direction requiring clarification on whether the petitioner had been appointed against a sanctioned post after obtaining her B.Ed. qualification.
The Court noted that the management had specifically stated that there was no such appointment. The State also confirmed that the two sanctioned posts created in 1992-93 had been filled by other teachers and that there was no sanctioned vacant post as of July 1, 1991.
The Bench observed:
"In order to be appointed as a trained teacher, it was necessary for the Petitioner to be appointed on a sanctioned post."
The Court further recorded that the petitioner had already been granted the senior undergraduate pay scale of ₹1,400-2,600 from July 1, 1993 and had retired while receiving that scale. It therefore found no defect in the Education Officer's order dated December 6, 2001.
The High Court also held that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Saramma Varghese v. Secretary/President, S.I.C.E.S. Society did not apply to the facts of the present matter.
Finding no merit in the petition, the Division Bench dismissed Writ Petition No. 4494 of 2001.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sou. Geetanjali Kulkarni v. The State of Maharashtra & Others
- Case Number: Writ Petition No. 4494 of 2001
- Judges: Justice Sandesh D. Patil and Justice M. S. Karnik
- Decision Date: September 17, 2026
